Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Karl egrapse
> One of the things that I noticed about pre-Babylonian Exile writings
> are the extensive oblique statements where the reader has to think
> about what is said and to fill in data to make sense of the statements.
> Often that is accompanied by a large vocabulary ... Isaiah ...
...
> Post-Babylonian Exile authors apparently generally lacked the vocabulary
> and facility with the language to make these literary flourishes, evidence
> that Hebrew was for them a second language, not their primary language.

Thank you, Karl, for a criterion, it is something that can be discussed.
It is of course, quite subjective, but at least it's a start.

A first comment must be made about your comparison of poetry (Isaiah)
with the narrative of most of the 'core' 2T (LBH, post-exilic) works. Poetry
depends on literary flourish, narrative to a much lesser degree. A second
comment on your 'modern hubris' that the 2T writers were not capable of
literary flourish: What do you say about Ben Sira|? He wrote on this very
theme around 180 BCE, who says in 33.16 [Greek numbering, = 36:16
+30:25 in Heb Lang Academy edition]:

גם אני אחרון שקדתי
וכמו עולל אח[רי בוצרים]
ב[ברכ]ת אל גם אני קדמתי
וכבוצר מלאתי [יקב

He uses agriculture and God's grace to include himself among Israel's
teachers of wisdom. And implies that he has some choice wine still
to offer.

Do we use the flourish criterion to place Deuteronomy in 2T because
so much of the language is plain and clear (I'm not speaking
about the poetry towards the end of the book.)? Genesis, too,
is it late because most of it is plain and clear?

It is interesting that Fitzmyer used the same criterion to disparage
the Hebrew version of Tobit, he complained that the Hebrew was
too convoluted. But he failed to notice that the Aramaic Tobit lacked
the edayin style of 2T Aramaic narrative, and he could not easily
explain the examples of narrative qatol as a main verb being part
of a translator's work from simpler Aramaic qtal verbs. So I
conclude (with more evidence not mentioned here) that Hb Tobit
was the original to Ar Tobit, contra Fitzmyer.

But back to Ben Sira. it is poetic, which explains some flourishings.
(Qohelet, is a wisdom essay, and though it is not poetic,
it is not plain narrative, either, which can explain flourishings.)

Despite BenSira's 'classic' style, he shares features with MishHeb:
51.48 elu va-elu אלו ואלו 'these and these'. (but lacking in Gr and
Syr, so textually uncertain.)

BenSira's use of sh- ש "that" splits statistically with אשר, very
similarly to what is seen in Qohelet.
bSira 40 asher/15 she-,
while Qohelet is 89 asher/ 68 she-.
The exact numbers are irrelevant, of course,
but the large numbers and the mix of both in the same document
is interesting in the history of the Hebrew language.
bSira also has shel 'yours' in 33:25 [H.L.Academy 30:29],
something like what is found in Song of Songs 1:6, 8:12 and
ubiquitous in Mishnaic Hebrew.
Qohelet has be-shel asher 8.17. (be-shel also occurs in
foreigner's speech in Jonah, while Jonah says be-asher le-)

bSira uses the classical BH style with "indefinite implied
pronoun": (one example among several)
עד עת ימלא לבו בי
 "until [a] time [that] his heart will be filled in me"
but also uses the common Mishnaic structure
bSira 33:33 [33:37]אי זה  once:
  באיזה דרך תבשקנו
"in which way would you search for him?"
Qohelet also uses אי זה 'whichever' 2:3, 11:6.
[A predecesor to such a structure is found in 2Kings
3.8, where the definite article is used with the following
noun. In bSira, and Qohelet, and commonly in Mishnaic
Hebrew, we find this without the definite article.]

As for bSira's freedom in language use, he has a long list of
vocabulary and verbs that are not attested in canonical BH,
many of these are not attested in Aramaic either. See
M.Z. Segal's commentary on bSira, p 21-22 (Hebrew).
While we can assume that at such a date (180 BCE) there
was a register distinction between high Hebrew and low
Hebrew (proto-Mishnaic) and that bSira's mother tongue
was probably the low Hebrew, we cannot say that his
literary creativity was restricted like a second language
user. The situation was much more complicated and needs
much more nuancing than Karl's criterion accounts for.
We certainly don't say that Swiss Germans are incapable
of literary finesse just because they may write a piece in
high German.

So I would ask Karl to read Ben Sira and to consider
finding other criteria for placing Qohelet. Even the few
bits in this email again point to a good fit with the
SECOND TEMPLE period for Qohelet.

from the other thread "Style and Qohelet" I add the
following in order to avoid two threads:

> Here are a some linguistic examples:
>
> אספות asuppot Q 12.11 occurs only here and in
mishnaic Hebrew.
כבר kevar only in Qohelet and mishnaic Hebrew.
לוה "accompany" Q 8.15 and in mishnaic Hebrew.
ענין 'affair' 8xx Q and in mishnaic Hebrew
רעיון 'thought' Q 2.22 and in mishnaic Hebrew
>
> ש she- "that" is interesting because of its frequency in Qohelet and
in mishnaic Hebrew. It has been argued to have come from a northern
dialect because of its occurrences in Judges and perhaps Jonah. Of
course, a northern origin would not help a Solomonic authorship
claim. Since "she-" 'that' cannot be easily explained as Judean in the
pre-exilic period, it adds considerable weight to the post-exilic
perspective. >
>
> Another remarkable feature of the book is the use of w+suffix verb in
contexts that are parallel with other suffix verbs. All twenty-one
occurrences are accented as mil`el in the MT. This is remarkable
because the rabbinic tradition was that Solomon wrote the book, but
the "mishnaic Hebrew" accentuation of this book is without any
parallel in the Hebrew Bible for its absolute consistency. In the rest
of the Heb Bible, non-pausal forms 1s and 2s suffix conjugation tend
to have a final syllable accent as part of the sequential verb system. >
>
> The features above are not 'silence' and they do, in fact, support the
otherwise strong probability that pitgam and pardes were borrowed into
Hebrew when there was strong Aramaic pressure from on top--during the
Persian period. >

This list, of course, is just a start, as can be seen by comparing this
email to the earlier one "Style and Qohelet".

braxot
Randall Buth


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life